The Delhi High Court has ordered re-training for a Family Court judge who invented a provision to grant a divorce decree. It said, “The manner in which the judge conducted proceedings disturbs judicial conscience and threatens the integrity of justice.”
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court set-aside a divorce decree issued by a family court at Patiala House, mandating retraining for the presiding judge. The court found that the judgment was based on non-existent legal provisions and was made without any evidence being recorded.
Concerns were raised about repeated legal and procedural errors in Judge Harish Kumar’s management of matrimonial cases.
The High Court has directed the Delhi Judicial Academy to provide Judge Kumar with comprehensive refresher training in matrimonial law before allowing him to oversee any further matrimonial matters.
Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar noted that despite the heavy burden on family courts, statutory regulations cannot be altered or ignored.
They said,
“While we are conscious that Family Courts are heavily burdened, owing to the increasing frequency with which parties separate, often on exceedingly trivial grounds, and the general erosion of the sanctity of marriage, this cannot be treated as a licence for any Court to indulge in what can only be described as statutory reengineering. The statutory scheme must be followed, irrespective of caseload pressures.”
This case arose from a matrimonial dispute leading to various civil and criminal proceedings in multiple states.
A divorce petition was filed in 2021 under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act (HMA), citing cruelty as the ground. Due to ongoing litigation in different jurisdictions and requests for transfers by the parties, the matter reached the Supreme Court, which ultimately directed that the divorce proceedings be consolidated in Delhi.
Before the family court, the petitioner’s opportunity to present evidence was closed on the initial date set for cross-examination, and no oral evidence was recorded from either party.
Nevertheless, the court proceeded to dissolve the marriage, relying on the Special Marriage Act (SMA) rather than the HMA, and incorrectly referenced a non-existent Section 28A of the SMA. These issues prompted the High Court’s intervention.
The High Court observed that this was not an isolated occurrence, pointing to previous cases where Judge Kumar had similarly overlooked statutory requirements in divorce proceedings.
They stated,
“The same learned Judge has, in several matters coming before this roster, repeatedly ignored clear statutory mandates. Although appellate courts exist to correct errors of subordinate courts, they cannot permit a situation where proceedings are conducted in disregard of the law or judgments are rendered on the basis of provisions that do not exist.”
The Bench also mentioned Judge Kumar’s remarks characterizing Hindu marriages as “holy unions” while suggesting that marriages under the SMA lacked the same significance.
They clarified,
“Whether a marriage is viewed as a sacrament or as a civil contract under different personal laws has no bearing whatsoever on the sanctity, legitimacy, or legal force of a marriage solemnised under the SMA. The SMA is a secular code intended to provide a neutral and uniform legal framework for couples who choose to marry under it, and it in no manner diminishes the dignity, solemnity, or seriousness of such marriages. To characterise marriages under the SMA as not being a ‘holy union’ is, therefore, neither appropriate nor appreciable.”
The High Court recognized the Supreme Court’s general admonition against making personal remarks about judicial officers.
However, they stated that the specific circumstances here warranted criticism, observing,
“The manner in which the learned Family Court Judge has repeatedly conducted proceedings not only disturbs judicial conscience but also threatens the integrity of the administration of justice.”
As a result, the Court cancelled the divorce decree and ordered a fresh trial before the Principal Judge of the Family Court at Patiala House, allowing both parties to present oral and documentary evidence anew.
The appellant was represented by Advocates Prosenjeet Banerjee, Shreya Singhal, Mhasilenuo Keditsu, Kushagra, Anshika, Vijayrajeshwari, and Sarthak.
The respondent was represented by Advocates Padma Priya, Chitrangda Rastrauara, Abhijeet Singh, Anirudh Singh, Aishwaray Mishra, Dhananjay Shekhawat, Sakshi Aggarwal, Yuvraj Singh, Pearl Pundir, and Bhumika.